Billions of years ago

Published February 26th, 2008 by Bobby Henderson

“Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on it’s surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words “Coca Cola… 12 fluid ounces.”

Of course my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident is to move from the intellectual free zone.

To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

Test 1.

The person who thinks the Coca Cola can has no designer is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

Now the document that I am referring from states that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings and focuses it’s muscles approximately 100,000 times a day. and that the eye has a retina that contains approximately 137,000,000 light sensitive cells.

The document continues and states that Charles Darwin stated:

“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” Agreed… it does not have the reference recorded so I do not know if this statement is true or false. But let me get to the point at hand.

If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance? In fact… man can’t create anything from nothing… we just do not know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop… but we can not create one grain of sand from nothing. Yet the human eye… is a mere tiny part of the most sophisticated part of creation – the human body.

Again… another statement which I would have to research and verify if this person actually made this comment:

“George Gallup; “If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.”

Now this statement concerning Albert Einstein. This is confusing… why would this man contradict himself? If he stated this… then every other statement that has been quoted at this forum is invalid because the man appears to be speaking from both sides of his mouth. In this statement Einstein is quoted to have said:

“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of our modest powers must feel humble.”

Test 2:

1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?

2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?

3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?

If you answered “Yes” to any of those statements… please give details:______________________…

Third analogy:

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and then by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? Logically, anyone with an intelligent mind might conclude that someone put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.

Test 3

Yes or No 1. From the atom to the universe is there order?

Yes or No 2. Did it happen by accident or must there been an intelligent mind?

3. What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________________…

To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: “There is no gold in China.”

Test 4 What would I need to have for that statement to be true?

A. No knowledge of China?

B. Partial knowledge of China?

C. Absolute knowledge of China?

“C” is the correct answer. In order for the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China.

Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn’t one.

Let’s say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let’s say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” In other words, you don’t know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an “agnostic.” You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn’t seem to know if there is a builder.

Test 5 The man who sees a building and doesn’t know if there is a builder is:

A. Intelligent

B. A fool

C. Has an ulterior motive

In summary: There are plenty of things that we have faith in that we do not fully understand. Most of us do not have a complete understanding that when you turned your computer on as to why it worked. You took a step of faith that turning it on… that somehow that it would work. You accept the unseen electrical waves that appear right in front of your eyes when you type your comments here. We do not see the reason for why the messages appear… because the powers that be are invisible to the naked eye. For them to be manifest, we need a monitor… so we can enjoy the experience of this forum.

God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible… like the computer waves. He can can not be experienced unless the monitor is turned on. One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn’t, forget it.

Or do you have an ulterior motive? Could it be that the “atheist” can’t find God… as a thief can’t find the policeman? Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?”

613 Responses to “Billions of years ago”

I have to admit this is the first time I have read the drivel written by Johnathon. He admits that he hasn’t read the original source for Darwin’s quote (which indeed takes on an entirely different context when read in full). Since he is obviously a lazy researcher he could have gone here http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Notable_Charles_Darwin_misquotes
Even if Darwin was quoted correctly (and Einstein for that matter) who gives a toss? Einstein and Darwin gave scientists something that could be studied and demonstrated. The occasional foray into mysticism does not negate their major work.

I quite agree with his statements about us having faith in many things we can’t prove. I do, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to live without having faith in some things. I agree with his statement about the Bible. If it works for you, fine. If it doesn’t, leave it be. It’s all the false logic beforehand that merely shows his ignorance of evolution and physics that’s the problem. How many times do we need to repeat that things occurring through natural selection are not chance events? Are they not listening, is it just convenient for them to continue to see a nonsensical version of evolution, or do they understand but would rather promote an easily discredited view of evolution?

In Johnathon’s case I think it is laziness. It is evident to me that he went to an internet site, say Ken Hampster’s (or perhaps more than one if he felt active) that spouts the same old guff supporting his views: I recognise some of the cut and paste arguments that appear on various creationist websites: viz the banana, the eye, the statistical oranges. I’m really surprised that he didn’t also throw in the dinosaurs -along side man footprints but perhaps it was too absurd even for him. It’s a pity Jonathon did not stay around. We could direct him to people like Potholer54 or sites like TalkOrigins, sites which explain why creationists are talking bollocks.
When I turn on my computer or switch on a lamp I do not have faith. I know from experience that it will work or it won’t. If it doesn’t I have a fair idea of the possible reasons for failure and may tinker around (experiment) to see if I can get it working. The Oxford English Dictionary describes faith as: (here I have cut and paste)

noun
[mass noun]

1complete trust or confidence in someone or something:this restores one’s faith in politicians

2strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof: bereaved people who have shown supreme faith
[count noun] a particular religion:the Christian faith
[count noun] a strongly held belief:men with strong political faiths

As a grumpy middle aged man who has had my fair share of dissappointments (such as the demise of “City of Heroes” ) I do not have complete trust or confidence in anyone or anything, least of all politicians and game companies. I think my views are quite clear on the second definition.

At the risk of beating a dead horse (but I LOVE horse-beating!) I just want to take one tired little segment to refute. “Of course my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. ”

No, Johnathan – your theory (sic) is an insult to my intelligence simply because it’s such an inane argument. Was there any advantage to the rock looking like a Coke can? Was it the product of millions of generations where the stripes and colors attracted mates?

I saw a web site that showed a Martian rock that looked like a face. Is this the face of God?? No, it’s just that if you take billions of rocks and the human penchant for trying to find patterns, eventually you’ll see a face, or a baby hippo, or a wheel.

And of course, if anything complex must have a designer, and god is a very complex being, who designed him?